Why don't we get rid of it? It's the most debated of any amendment in the Bill of Rights portion of the Constitution and it's out dated.

If we got rid of it, would it mean that guns would become outlaw? Not at all. It would put gun sale laws into the hands of the states. Interstate commerce would be the only way the Federal government could control guns and that's already in the law books.

The Federal government is limited by the Constitution. We're not supposed to have a 'standing army,' but we do. We just can't fund it for over two years. So Congress goes for funding for the military every two years. Our state militias are called the National Guard--and they're the majority of our fighting troops.

Hunting is already controlled by the states and depends on 'seasons' and the need to take over the 'culling' of animals.

Seems to me the only adverse effect of getting rid of the Second Amendment would be that the NRA would no longer have a purpose.

"Be what you would seem to be - or, if you'd like it put more simply - never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise."— Lewis Carroll

Self-protection is still relevant in my book and in my families where several members have conceal and carry permits as well as defensive measures for any types of intruders who may trespass indoors. I am unfit to own a firearm, but I would not begrudge sane and upstanding individuals their right to defend themselves with an efficient weapon, nor would I support any governmental move to eliminate their choice to arm themselves effectively.

I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.

surreptitious75 wrote:The Second Amendment exists to protect the American people against the tyranny of the stateIt will never be repealed unless the issue of gun ownership ceases to be of importance to them

K:ummmm, and exactly how does the pop guns of home defense actuallydefend against the very modern and sophisticated weapons of the state....

for example, how would a home owner defend his home against, say a tank,or missile's? he can't, the very weapons of the modern state make this argumentirrelevant. The second amendment no longer functions as it is suppose toand thus needs to be repealed...……

Kropotkin

"Those who sacrifice liberty for securitywind up with neither." "Ben Franklin"

It can only be repealed if Congress votes to do so but as the NRA effectively lobbies them to support gun ownership this is not going to be happening any time soonMany libertarians who are ex army have underground bunkers heavily stockpiled with food and weapons so if their house gets attacked it will make zero difference

surreptitious75: It can only be repealed if Congress votes to do so but as the NRA effectively lobbies them to support gun ownership this is not going to be happening any time soon

K: thus speaking to the point where we no longer have "government of the people,for the people, by the people"... we have government that is bought and paid forby big business and special interest groups like the NRA......and the conservativesfight for and totally support this form of government because it means moneyand power for them... and that is all the conservative stands for, money and power....principles that conservatives once stood for like patriotism and tradition andvalues have all gone out the window for the conservative because they are onlyinterested in.... yep, money and power.....

S: "Many libertarians who are ex army have underground bunkers heavily stockpiled with food and weapons so if their house gets attacked it will make zero difference"

K: let me fixed this for you, Many libertarians and right wing fanantics who areex army have ...……………..

and it will not make the least bit of difference how many weapons you have becauseyou cannot fight the modern army... hell, the police force have becomeso militarized that they can overwhelm most small armies...... you simplycannot defeat them militarily..........either the military or the police..their weapons simply overmatch anything a civilian can get........

Kropotkin

"Those who sacrifice liberty for securitywind up with neither." "Ben Franklin"

I was beginning to think that this thread had been beating an already dead horse since it took so long to be answered.

Let's look at it:

Amendment II.Right to keep and bear arms.A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That's it.

How do you parse that sentence?

Or, to put it a bit differently--Has any state invaded another state? Has any state denied gun ownership to anyone who meets the criteria that state has set for gun ownership?

How has the Federal Government--or State governments, for that matter, infringed upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms?

I really don't know--that's why I'm asking.

"Be what you would seem to be - or, if you'd like it put more simply - never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise."— Lewis Carroll

Peter Kropotkin wrote:and it will not make the least bit of difference how many weapons you have because you cannot fight the modern army

No you cannot but what about the right to bear arms purely for the protection of ones family and propertyIs that not a legitimate reason to keep the Second Amendment even though it was not its original intention

Peter Kropotkin wrote:and it will not make the least bit of difference how many weapons you have because you cannot fight the modern army

No you cannot but what about the right to bear arms purely for the protection of ones family and propertyIs that not a legitimate reason to keep the Second Amendment even though it was not its original intention

K: if it is for the protection of family and property, then why not let the police do theirjob? and that is their job, to "protect" us and our property...……..

I have never, ever needed a gun for any reason whatsover and I havebeen in some very, very dicy area's, south side of Chicago for exampleand the metro in Paris at night........... In fact, I have been only in onefight as an adult and that was defending some lady who was being harassed by a guy at a bus stop.......... the fact is, you don't need a gun and you reallydon't need a weapon like an assault rifle to "protect" yourself.............

the need for guns is simply for people who are afraid of their own shadow......gutless cowards.........it is for people who want to feel powerful and superior,and they can't get it any other way but by buying guns....really, it is rather sad......and pathetic.......... to get a gun to make yourself feel strong and powerful......

Kropotkin

"Those who sacrifice liberty for securitywind up with neither." "Ben Franklin"

You're all forgetting to parse the sentence that is the Second Amendment.

How would repealing the Second Amendment affect gun ownership...Seriously.

States already regulate gun ownership by age. The Federal government has added security background checks, something the State could do with no trouble.States could also ban military style assault weapons and/or weapons that are easily convertible. The Second simply says that everyone has the right to bear arms--so, okay! Let the States determine any 'infringements.' Isn't it the right of the States to do so?

The only way the Federal Government would be involved, then, would be under the Interstate Commerce Act. And it has already done so when it forbade anyone to cross state lines with a sawed-off shotgun. States also regulate when you can hunt and what animals can be hunted. Organizations exist for competitive shooting and local laws regulate what and where shooting can occur.

Why do some people get all jangled and quote the NRA's interpretation of the Second Amendment whenever repealing the Second is mentioned?

"Be what you would seem to be - or, if you'd like it put more simply - never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise."— Lewis Carroll

Peter Kropotkin wrote:and it will not make the least bit of difference how many weapons you have becauseyou cannot fight the modern army... hell, the police force have becomeso militarized that they can overwhelm most small armies...... you simplycannot defeat them militarily..........either the military or the police..their weapons simply overmatch anything a civilian can get........

Kropotkin

There are two main reasons you are incorrect here 1) asymmetric warefare coupled with 2) a non-unified military/law enforcement (by this I do not mean that it is law enforcement vs. the military, but rather, for example in the case of a coup or fascist takeover, it is very likely that facets of the military and law enforcement will have sympthies with what would now be gun owner rebels).

We have seen how much trouble and time asymmetrical warfare can cause even the US's flexible enormous military. Those problems multiply when the enemy forces are your own citizens. More military personel at all levels will dislike their tasks in ways that go far beyond what happened in Vietnam and the Gulf wars. Knowing this the fascist elements may try to quickly stamp out all resistence. Teh problem with this is you will have a lot of collateral causualities. Regular citizens getting killed.

When you couch the conflict as a battle between gun owners and the military, you are seeing discrete categories lined up in a field. But what is much more likely is a situation like we have with insurgents, only now instead of blending in with foreign civilians the military cares not so much about, they are mixed in with Americans, IOW the very people the military and law enforcement are supposed to protect.

Individual soldiers will join the resistance. Whole troops, battalions may do this also. There may be all sorts of more indirect sabotage.

This will not all happen in a day. The more time it takes, the few degrees of separation between soldiers and hearing about dead friends, blown up neighborhoods that matter to them. The more civilian deaths, even with all the propaganda minimizing the real collateral damage data, the more internal resistence in the military. And its not like the generals are all going to like this. There will be factions, internal strife.

What the resistence would be working on is extending time as much as possible. The more time, the more the killing their own people will cause attrition and outright rebellion in the military.

Note: it is not that I can predict a winner. But an armed population does change the odds and create a lot of problems for various kinds of coups. Problems not faced in countries with less gun ownership.

Note also: I hate this. I hate gun culture and the costs are enormous. But given that we have and have had for a while an oligarchy and not a democracy. And given that we have a very powerful military and an increasingly foundational economic set of problems, I tend to weigh in on the gun ownership side. It runs counter to my temperment. I do not socialize with many gun owners. It feels almost like rooting for the enemy. But given history, I think it is the lesser evil. I think it would give pause and for good reason to factions in the US deciding, what the fuck, let's take over openly and clearly. They would know they'd have to win fast and cleanly and that is not likely to happen. The faster they aim at wiping out resistence, the more immediate collateral damage and the more resistence this will lead to both in their own ranks and in the population at large. The propganda threshold is like nothing they would have ever dealt with before. And their own people would be seeing the results on the ground.

Is it enough to prevent a coup?

I don't know.

But the arguement of looking at the two sides as if they are 1) distinct 2) going to face off in a symmetric battle and 3) like this is like any other war the US has hadis misleading in the extreme.

You put tanks on streets, you create resistence. The airforce bombs a survivalist camp. You create resistence. You create deserters with stories. And whatever coalition of generals and politicians with have its cracks and potential split points. Look at the British army in northern Ireland. The British army could have killed every single Catholic and every single IRA in some kind of symmetrical war. A joke. In half an hour.

And that's where you had religious and national - even racial - differences that made it more likely for the English people not to identify with the dead and injured.

A war against your own people would be even harder. And the advantages the military would have would also be disadvantages.

Americans, ironically enough, root for underdogs, at least also, and with a passion.

Pulling american kids out of rubble, that's going to need more than an apology and some spin.

Peter Kropotkin wrote:and it will not make the least bit of difference how many weapons you have because you cannot fight the modern army

No you cannot but what about the right to bear arms purely for the protection of ones family and propertyIs that not a legitimate reason to keep the Second Amendment even though it was not its original intention

if it is for the protection of family and property then why not let the police do their job and that is their job to protect us and our property

The police cannot be at the scene of every crime while it is actually happening at the timeUsually they arrive after the crime has been committed and the criminals have already fled

The police cannot be at the scene of every crime while it is actually happening at the timeUsually they arrive after the crime has been committed and the criminals have already fled

How many violent crimes involving guns would be impossible if the Second Amendment were to be repealed? Think about it!

"Be what you would seem to be - or, if you'd like it put more simply - never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise."— Lewis Carroll

If you don't raise people to be absolute retards, they might end up taking themselves and each other more seriously, a bit more like the people that wrote the constitution took themselves and each other.

Fixed Cross wrote:Why don't you people first get your education in order?

If you don't raise people to be absolute retards, they might end up taking themselves and each other more seriously, a bit more like the people that wrote the constitution took themselves and each other.

How many violent crimes involving guns would be impossible if the Second Amendment were to be repealed?

If your answer is that there would be little or no difference, then we agree.

Liz

"Be what you would seem to be - or, if you'd like it put more simply - never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise."— Lewis Carroll

We need to ban white men from guns, so many problems comes from them owning them. This goes for white women also, they can't be trusted either. In fact we just need to ban white people from guns period.

The second amendment might as well be called hate speech.

The temple mount will be rebuilt in Jerusalem and all the nations of the world will be ruled from there. All races, cultures, leaders, and nations will come to bow before the new messiah yet to come. All will come to know the chosen of God who refer themselves as Jews. For every Jew there will be a thousand goyim that will be their slaves as it was ordained by God. Every man, woman, and child will convert to Zionism.

Come on, people, please --Why do we have the Second when we have state infringements (and the Interstate Commerce Act) that limit gun ownership, regulate the times and places as well as where and when weapons can be used, and regulate hunting as a sport? Why, exactly, is the NRA so powerful? How did it get to be so? What bad would occur if the Second were to be repealed and the NRA were to be dissolved? Would more lives be lost or would more lives be saved?

Liz

"Be what you would seem to be - or, if you'd like it put more simply - never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise."— Lewis Carroll

lizbethrose wrote:Come on, people, please --Why do we have the Second when we have state infringements (and the Interstate Commerce Act) that limit gun ownership, regulate the times and places as well as where and when weapons can be used, and regulate hunting as a sport? Why, exactly, is the NRA so powerful? How did it get to be so? What bad would occur if the Second were to be repealed and the NRA were to be dissolved? Would more lives be lost or would more lives be saved?

Liz

The NRA is powerful because of an organized group of evil white men therefore we need to abolish the NRA because of racism.

Let's abolish and destroy the NRA together.

The temple mount will be rebuilt in Jerusalem and all the nations of the world will be ruled from there. All races, cultures, leaders, and nations will come to bow before the new messiah yet to come. All will come to know the chosen of God who refer themselves as Jews. For every Jew there will be a thousand goyim that will be their slaves as it was ordained by God. Every man, woman, and child will convert to Zionism.

I agree with you about the NRA. It was formed in 1871 in order to teach men how to shoot breach-loaded rifles, but it didn't become politically active until the 1970's. I was in school then, so what I'm looking for is the public thoughts that led to the gun reform laws that the NRA fought so hard to stop and/or abolish. I know they're backed by the weapons industry, but I don't know what the public was thinking at the time (1970's) that led to gun laws and that took the gun laws to the SCOTUS.

History is the movement of thought that leads to an historical moment--that's what I'm interested in. Can anyone help me?

"Be what you would seem to be - or, if you'd like it put more simply - never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise."— Lewis Carroll